🚗 The Motor Finance Supreme Court Case: How Lenders Have Admitted Breaching FCA Rules

The Supreme Court case has laid bare an uncomfortable truth about the motor finance industry: lenders acted in their own interests, with disregard for consumer fairness, and in doing so have effectively admitted to breaching the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)’s rules.

What’s even more troubling is the FCA’s own position in court—aligned with the lenders—appears to sidestep or even contradict the very rules it is tasked with upholding.

⚖️ The Lenders’ Argument in the Supreme Court Case

In front of the UK Supreme Court, lenders have argued that:

• They were under no obligation to act in the best interests of consumers.
• They were not acting with impartiality, and were in fact only acting in their own commercial self-interests.
• The existence and amount of commission paid to car dealerships for arranging finance did not need to be disclosed, even when this incentivised the dealer to select more expensive or less suitable products.

This stance strikes at the heart of the regulatory rules that are designed to protect consumers from financial harm.

📜 The FCA Rules on Commission Disclosure

The FCA rules specifically state that a credit broker (the dealership) must disclose the existence and nature of commission arrangements if the commission could affect the broker’s impartiality.

The rule could not be more clear.

🔍 What is “Impartiality”?

Oxford Dictionary definition: “Equal treatment of all rivals or disputants; fairness.”

In the context of motor finance, dealerships were incentivised, by way of commission, to propose more expensive finance agreements to consumers.

Therefore, the mere existence of a commission affects the impartiality of the dealership—and thus, per FCA rules, should have been disclosed.

🚫 The FCA’s Position in Court: A Dangerous Contradiction

Rather than standing up for its own rulebook, the FCA has inexplicably chosen to side with lenders in this Supreme Court battle. By suggesting that:

• Lenders were not required to act impartially,
• Lenders were not required to act in the best interest of the consumer,
• Consumer harm is not a clear outcome of undisclosed commissions,

The position of the FCA undermines its own consumer protection framework and clearly contradicts its own rulebook.

📌 The Obvious and Clear Conflict

The FCA’s own rulebook requires disclosure where impartiality is affected.

The lenders’ argument in the Supreme Court case relies on the position that they were acting in their own interests, and not impartially.

There is either a fundamental misunderstanding by the FCA of its own rules, or a calculated retreat in favour of those it regulates.

🧾 What This Means: A Regulatory and Moral Failure

This case exposes a deep failure of industry governance. It confirms:

• Lenders knowingly structured commissions to benefit themselves and dealerships at the direct expense of consumers.
• Disclosure obligations were ignored despite impartiality being affected—and now effectively admitted.
• The FCA has, by its courtroom stance, given a green light to opacity and conflict of interest.

🔚 Conclusion: An Industry on Trial, and a Regulator on the Ropes

The Supreme Court case is not just about consumer refunds—it’s about systemic misconduct, regulatory weakness, and the fundamental question of who the financial system is designed to protect.

If lenders can argue they owe consumers no duty of care—and if the regulator tasked with enforcing fairness supports that argument—then the motor finance industry is more broken than anyone feared.

This is not just a case about past failings. It’s a live test of whether fairness and transparency have any meaning left in UK financial regulation.

YOUR MONEY CLAIM

⚠️ Corruption in Plain Sight: How the FCA and Government Are Colluding to Protect Lenders from Paying What They Owe

In what can only be described as an increasingly shameless betrayal of public trust, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) — backed, it appears, by elements within government — is taking a series of calculated steps to shield the motor finance industry from its legal and financial obligations to UK consumers.

The UK public has witnessed scandal after scandal where financial institutions have misled, mis-sold, and manipulated the public. But what we are now seeing is something even more disturbing: a coordinated campaign to minimise rightful compensation owed to consumers following the systemic non-disclosure of motor finance commissions — a practice tantamount to bribery and deception.

This collusion is not theoretical. It is unfolding now, through a four-pronged strategy designed to insulate the guilty and obstruct justice.

🧾 1. Supreme Court Interference: The FCA Sides with the Guilty

When the issue of hidden motor finance commissions reached the UK Supreme Court, the FCA had a choice: defend consumer rights or defend industry profits. It chose the latter.

In its submission to the court, the FCA took the side of the finance providers — the very firms that enabled a system where car dealerships were incentivised with undisclosed commissions, to steer consumers into more expensive finance deals. The FCA’s argument? That a consumer victory would risk “significant financial harm” to the motor finance industry.

Let’s be clear: this was not a neutral submission. This was an attempt to influence the highest court in the land in favour of financial firms who had, for all intents and purposes, bribed salespeople to mis-sell motor finance agreements.

Even the UK Government attempted to intervene in the case — but was excluded. The FCA, however, was heard. And it chose the wrong side.

💰 2. FOS Fees for Representatives: Silencing the Vulnerable

The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) — historically a last line of defence for ordinary people — has now implemented a new policy: charging fees to representatives who escalate claims.

This is a direct attack on those most in need of support — vulnerable consumers who depend on professional firms to navigate a complex system that has failed them at every turn.

Why introduce this now? Because firms have been wrongly rejecting complaints for years, historically during the PPI scandal, and now on motor finance commission cases. And instead of fixing the problem at the source, the FOS is making it harder and more expensive for victims to pursue justice.

This chilling effect on representation plays right into the hands of the same firms that created this mess — and ensures that fewer consumers will have the help they need to make successful claims.

📉 3. Reducing Statutory Interest: Helping the Guilty Pay Less

The FCA is now consulting on reducing the statutory interest rate applied to consumer compensation awards, which currently stands at 8% per annum.

This is the only meaningful financial penalty that most misbehaving firms ever face. It recognises that consumers have been deprived of the use of their money and should act as a deterrent against the unfair conduct of firms.

To reduce this now — when consumers may shortly begin to receive compensation for motor finance commission failings — is to blatantly help firms limit their liabilities. It’s not just misguided regulation. It’s collusion.

⚖️ 4. Undermining the Law on Unfair Relationships

The final and most brazen move? The FCA has launched a consultation to “modernise” the unfair relationships provisions under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 — the very law that has enabled claims for hidden commissions in motor finance.

This provision — Section 140A — is the legal backbone that consumers and their representatives rely upon to expose wrongdoing and recover compensation.

So why would the FCA seek to “reform” it now?

Because the current law is working too well. It’s forcing firms to face up to past misconduct and redress wrongs the FCA failed to prevent. Rather than own up to years of inaction and ineffective supervision, the regulator is looking to change the rules mid-game.

This is not a coincidence. This is damage control — a thinly veiled effort to protect corporate interests and bury regulatory failures.

🧨 A Pattern of Protection, Not Regulation

Let’s connect the dots:

• The FCA intervenes in court to protect lenders, not consumers.
• The FOS makes it harder for representatives to bring claims.
• The FCA consults on reducing redress interest — making justice cheaper for firms.
• The law that exposes wrongdoing is now up for reform.

This is not “modernisation.” This is a coordinated retreat from accountability.

🗣️ Our Position: Consumers Must Not Be Betrayed Again

We believe the FCA and government should be facing intense scrutiny, not allowed to quietly rewrite the rules in favour of the finance industry.

The public has been misled, overcharged, and denied the truth for decades. This latest scandal is bigger than PPI, and the attempts to limit redress reveal a regulator that is not just ineffective — but complicit.

📢 Final Word

If you’re wondering why you’re not hearing more about this from the regulators themselves — it’s because they don’t want you to. But we will not be silent.

If you’ve had motor finance between 2007 and 2024, your rights are real — and the fight for justice is far from over.

YOUR MONEY CLAIM

🚗 The FCA’s Contradictory Position on Motor Finance Commission Redress: Whose Side Are They Really On?

At Your Money Claim, we’ve long championed transparency, fairness, and justice for consumers misled or mistreated by financial institutions. That’s why the FCA’s recent behaviour regarding the potential introduction of a redress scheme for motor finance commission claims is not only puzzling—it’s deeply troubling.

⚖️ The FCA’s Supreme Court Submission: Protecting Industry Over Consumers?

In a submission to the UK Supreme Court, the FCA made its stance alarmingly clear: it stood not with consumers—but against them.

The regulator argued that a judgment in favour of consumers in motor finance commission claims could pose a significant risk of financial harm to the motor finance industry.

Let that sink in.

The very body tasked with protecting consumers made a conscious choice to shield the financial institutions that may have engaged in misleading, non-transparent, or unfair practices.

This position undermines the FCA’s statutory obligations under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000—including the need to protect consumers and enhance the integrity of the UK financial system.

🔁 A Redress Scheme: Welcome, But at What Cost?

Following significant pressure, the FCA has now announced that it is considering a redress scheme. We welcome this development—but only if it results in full, fair, and timely compensation for all affected individuals.

A redress scheme could see a much higher percentage of consumers compensated, and in a much shorter period of time.

However, let us be crystal clear: the FCA’s change in tone does not absolve it of its earlier contradictions.

💰 The PPI Parallel: Case-by-Case Resolution Is Less Burdensome

There is a painful irony here.

During the PPI scandal, redress was primarily resolved on a case-by-case basis, allowing claims to be individually assessed and staggered over time.

This approach allowed firms to manage financial exposure incrementally, avoiding a full-scale, immediate financial shock to the industry.

The FCA’s Supreme Court intervention suggests that even a staggered approach—through claims brought individually—could be too financially damaging for the motor finance sector. That’s a clear contradiction.

❗ The Core Contradiction

Let’s break it down:

• The FCA opposed a consumer-friendly judgment on the grounds that mass payouts could harm the motor finance sector.
• The FCA is now proposing a redress scheme, which by nature would most certainly be far more financially burdensome than individual claims.
• Meanwhile, consumers are still waiting, and firms that profited from non-disclosed commission arrangements continue to benefit from more regulatory hesitancy.

This contradiction calls into serious question the FCA’s impartiality and commitment to consumer protection. Either consumer redress is financially manageable (as PPI proved), or the industry’s fragility is being used as a smokescreen to delay justice.

🗣️ Our Position

At Your Money Claim, we support any process that ensures affected consumers are compensated fairly.

We support a redress scheme—but it must not be a vehicle for delay, dilution, or escape.

We also believe that case-by-case claims remain a legitimate and necessary route.

In fact, they may be less damaging to firms than a sudden, mandatory redress rollout.

Any argument to the contrary is illogical and undermines the very premise of financial justice.

📢 Final Word

The FCA cannot have it both ways.

Either it supports consumer redress, in which case it must stop impeding it through legal manoeuvres—or it risks losing the trust of the very public it was created to protect.

If you’ve taken out a motor finance agreement and suspect a hidden commission may have been involved, we’re here to help. Justice delayed is not justice denied—but it’s time it was delivered.

YOUR MONEY CLAIM

GAP Insurance Mis-Selling: The New PPI Scandal in Disguise?

It’s all starting to feel very familiar.

A financial product, sold widely across the UK. A huge proportion of consumers unaware of how much commission was pocketed behind the scenes. A ‘trusted’ sales channel — usually a car dealership or a lender — pushing a policy that promises peace of mind but offered questionable value.

Welcome to the unfolding scandal of GAP insurance mis-selling — and yes, it bears striking similarities to the notorious Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) debacle that rocked the finance industry and cost lenders over £38 billion in redress.

---

🔍 What Is GAP Insurance — and How Was It Mis-Sold?

Guaranteed Asset Protection (GAP) insurance is designed to cover the difference between what your insurer pays out if your car is written off, and what you still owe on your finance agreement. In principle, it’s a perfectly valid product — but, as with PPI, it was the way it was sold that turned it into a ticking time bomb.

What we now know is this:

• GAP insurance was frequently added to finance agreements, or paid for via customer deposits at the point of sale.
• In all cases we’ve seen so far, consumers weren’t told that dealers were earning huge commissions for selling the policy.
• Worse still, and based on what we’ve seen, those commissions often made up around 70% of the entire policy premium.

That’s not just a markup — it’s financial daylight robbery disguised as protection.

---

💸 The PPI Echo: Greed, Misleading Sales, and Hidden Commission

For those who remember the PPI scandal, this all sounds eerily familiar. At the heart of PPI mis-selling was the non-disclosure of commissions and the incentive for salespeople to push a product that suited their bonus, not the customer.

It now appears that GAP insurance followed the same playbook. Despite the public embarrassment and regulatory scrutiny that followed PPI, the finance sector clearly learned little — if anything.

What we’re seeing with GAP insurance is a damning indication that weak regulation and institutional greed have once again taken precedence over fairness and transparency.

---

📈 70% Commission? That’s Not Protection — That’s Profiteering

From the cases we’ve reviewed, it’s evident that the average commission earned on GAP policies sits around 70% of the policy cost.

Let that sink in: for every £300 you paid for GAP cover, the dealership or lender may have pocketed £210.

How can a policy be “value for money” when over two-thirds of the premium disappears in undisclosed commission before any actual cover is provided?

The issue isn’t GAP insurance itself — it can be a valuable product. The problem lies in the greedy and opaque practices used to sell it.

---

🏦 The Truth About Redress — and Why Most Victims Never Claim

Even with the PPI scandal — the most well-publicised mis-selling event in UK history — millions of valid claims were never submitted. Many consumers either:

• Didn’t know they had a claim,
• Missed the deadline, or
• Were wrongly told they weren’t eligible.

Despite paying out tens of billions in compensation, lenders still walked away profitable. The system was stacked in their favour then — and, unless people act now, history will repeat itself.

---

✅ What Can You Do?

If you purchased GAP insurance as part of a car finance deal there’s a real chance that:

• You paid not only for the policy, but also a significant undisclosed commission, and
• You may be entitled to compensation for the unfair relationship that created.

---

💬 Final Thoughts: The Product Isn’t the Problem — It’s the People Selling It

GAP insurance, like PPI before it, wasn’t inherently bad. It’s the commission culture, lack of transparency, and failure to treat customers fairly that turned a useful product into a scandal-in-waiting.

Once again, the finance industry has shown that profit comes before principle — unless they’re held to account.

Don’t let them walk away again.

YOUR MONEY CLAIM